Yes, listen, I do not wish to do the harping on this but I would agree as we first need the opinions of several people before we can do the full reaching of the conclusion of this. The people who are needed by we have the inclusion of:

Now listen I do not wish to be the judge of this but can tell to you that I do not see in this the individual mandate of the free thyroid testing which would cure the problem of the obesity in the country of this so I do not believe that this is going to be the Constitutional thing and think that the United States Court of the Supremes but not with Diana Ross is the incorrection.

meow said the dog:Yes, listen, I do not wish to do the harping on this but I would agree as we first need the opinions of several people before we can do the full reaching of the conclusion of this. The people who are needed by we have the inclusion of:

Now listen I do not wish to be the judge of this but can tell to you that I do not see in this the individual mandate of the free thyroid testing which would cure the problem of the obesity in the country of this so I do not believe that this is going to be the Constitutional thing and think that the United States Court of the Supremes but not with Diana Ross is the incorrection.

You are Welcome.

Almost perfect, but you forgot to add bone density tests. After all, so many people in this country are big-boned, so we shouldn't count them toward our obesity rate.

John Dewey:There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

meow said the dog:Yes, listen, I do not wish to do the harping on this but I would agree as we first need the opinions of several people before we can do the full reaching of the conclusion of this. The people who are needed by we have the inclusion of:

Now listen I do not wish to be the judge of this but can tell to you that I do not see in this the individual mandate of the free thyroid testing which would cure the problem of the obesity in the country of this so I do not believe that this is going to be the Constitutional thing and think that the United States Court of the Supremes but not with Diana Ross is the incorrection.

John Dewey:There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

John Dewey:There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

You are wrong. It says the SCOTUS is the supreme court of the land and the constitution are laws of this nation (that trump other normal laws) so how those laws affect people based on actual court cases is what all courts do. To say that constitutional law would have no say in the court of law would be making it for all practical purposes useless. Even the founding fathers talked about judicial review of laws.

Answer me this: If someone was abridging my first or second amendment rights (or any constitutional right or law) who the hell would be there to judge that if it wasn't for the judiciary?

You answer would be no one. So then the constitution would be completely useless.

Serious Black:John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

So who DOES have the power to judge the constitutionality of laws?

To them. Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.

Insatiable Jesus:that bosnian sniper: Is this the thread where we praise CNN for being the only accurate media outlet that broke away from the liberal lame LSM media to report Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional?

John Dewey:There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.

jayhawk88:John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.

John Dewey:There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Yes here:

Article III.

Section. 1.The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution is Law, the Supreme court is the final arbitrator of US law, that's what the judiciary is. The constitution does in fact give them power to judge cases based on the Constitution or the Constitution would not be law.

You can't saw something is law but the say courts can rule based on it. It would be useless.

Serious Black:John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

John Dewey:Corvus: Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.

Really? You think that's a right wing only thing?

So right wingers think people on the left should decide what is Constitution? Did you read what I actually typed instead of making things up?

Are you going to answer my question or keep dodging?

Who would decide on Constitutionality if it wasn't the supreme court? How would that work, if the government illegally took something from me with no trial, who would I see exactly to try to get it back?

You not able to answer any of my questions and instead making false arguments up shows you really don't even understand your own position.

I have encountered individuals who believe that the claim that handgun prohibition is Unconstitutional is "spurious" due to only one source -- the Supreme Court of the United States -- claiming such. I am certain that the author would be in full agreement with those civilian disarmament advocates.

Arkanaut:Serious Black: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Corvus:You not able to answer any of my questions and instead making false arguments up shows you really don't even understand your own position.

You said "Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says."

That seems to imply you think only right wingers don't understand what the constitution says. I think that's pretty plain. For someone who claims to understand what the supreme law of the land says (which is pretty complicated language) you sure don't have a good grasp of what you're saying in what appears to be a simple sentence.

John Dewey:There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

So if Congress passes a law making Islam the national religion, and the President signs it, who else is supposed to say "no, the Constitution forbids that" but the Courts?

Good lord, I know we're supposed to believe that education is the devil, but this is 3rd grade social studies here. The whole checks and balances thing among the three equal branches of government. (And yes, I know there's a segment of the GOP that now states the judiciary is not supposed to be an equal branch but a subserviant one).

Corvus:The Constitution is Law, the Supreme court is the final arbitrator of US law, that's what the judiciary is. The constitution does in fact give them power to judge cases based on the Constitution or the Constitution would not be law.

They were originally envisioned to judge cases based on the constitution and the law.

Not throw out laws based on their interpretation of the constitution.

Jefferson and Madison didn't like the outcome of Marbury v. Madison.

Of course, the current setup is much better than trusting Congress to follow the constitution in all the laws that they write.